I was interested in Prof’s mention of Genesis 34 today, so I looked it up and was shocked by the time I had finished reading the second line. In the story Dinah, the daughter of Leah and Jacob, goes on a trip to “visit the daughters of the land”. On her trip Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite and prince of the country, sees her and rapes her. He then falls in love with her and tells his dad he wants to marry her. Hamor and Shechem then travel to Jacob’s house to ask for his daughter’s hand in marriage. Meanwhile, Jacob hears the news that his daughter has been raped and tells his sons when they come in from work in the fields. They’re furious. Hamor and Shechem arrive after and ask for Jacob’s blessing of Shechem and Dinah, but before Jacob can respond, Dinah’s brothers say that in order for the kingdoms to unite under marriage, every man in their town, including Hamor and Shechem, must be circumcised. Hamor and Shechem happily agree and go back to their city to tell every man he must be circumcised. Every man obeys and is circumcised, but three days after the procedure while all men are still in pain, Dinah’s brothers Levi and Simeon attack the city slaying all of the males and looting the rest of the city while they’re at it. They take Dinah from Shechem’s house and take all of the women and children of the city with them as well. When this happens, Jacob who has been quiet throughout all of this is furious with his sons saying they have set him up for death against the rage of the angry Canaanites and Perizzites. The two brothers simply respond, well was it right for him to turn our sister into a prostitute?
This story is very controversial. It raises the question of who is the bad guy? I did some research and many people, when reviewing this story in the bible, regard Shechem as the good guy. This is a viewpoint of scholar Gerhard von Rad for example, and many other scholars that somewhat marginalizes the rape of Dinah. After the rape, something that was completely shameful in Jerusalem, Shechem falls in love with Dinah and proposes to her attempting to make their relationship holy. Shechem is then tricked by the brothers who take revenge for their sister killing the men and devastating the city. Who do you see as the bad guy?
Also, why did the sons require the men to be circumcised? Was it simply a plan in order to make them weak and cause pain? Was it a representation of stripping the manliness out of men before they stole their wives and children? Was it used to gain a sense of power over the men? Was it even all of these combined? The story makes it seem as they did this in order to physiologically inhibit the men’s ability to fight back, but I’m sure it had intended psychological impacts on men as well.
Why was this story put in the bible in the first place? Is God justifying revenge in the case of family? The brothers could have easily said no to the marriage of Dinah and Shechem, but instead they decide to take everything from Harom and Schehem including their lives, somewhat symbolizing the rape of Dinah, taking her physically and mentally. Was the writer attempting to give notice to women’s rights and the need to stand up for them? Do you have any other ideas to give substance to this story?
Here is the link of Genesis 34 online:
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/34?lang=eng
I think Allen beings up a good point. Indeed, the underlying moral lesson behind this fable may be that of communal responsibility. In the Hindu canon, time is divided cyclically into four ages, each representing a moral stage of mankind. In the Satya Yuga, or age of truth, a transgression against the ordained social rules results in a karmic burden for the entire community, which may manifest in a devastating war or famine. As the ages progress the circle of responsibility diminishes into ever-smaller forms of the civilizational collective, such as villages and principalities, and when we eventually reach the current age of Kali Yuga, the age of darkness, each is responsible solely for his own actions. Therefore, this biblical story might be hearkening to an age of greater morality when people felt beholden to cultivating virtues and thespiritual development of others in their community. this the entire. A transgression would result in the entire community being punished since they are all at fault for negligence towards their communal duties.
I was interested to see how religious communities view and discuss the story of Genesis 34. Upon doing some research, I was somewhat shocked by the commentary I found on the topic. I looked at two commentaries both designed to facilitate discussion and understanding of the story for Bible studies. Both sites almost seemed to blame Dinah for her rape by Shechem, One source stated “it is highly probable that she had been often and freely mixing in the society of the place and that she, being a simple, inexperienced, and vain young woman, had been flattered by the attentions of the ruler’s son” while the other states “[young women] are their own enemies if they desire to go abroad, especially alone, among strangers to true religion. Those parents are very wrong who do not hinder their children from needlessly exposing themselves to danger. Indulged children, like Dinah, often become a grief and shame to their families.”
Although it upsets me to see such blatant victim blaming, I’ll try to understand why such commentary may exist. Perhaps the conflicting nature of the story and its puzzling moral created a desire for some explanation that designates a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” If Shechem and Dinah had met and fell in love prior to the rape, although it was still committing a sin, Dinah’s brothers would be viewed as the greater evildoers by reacting in such a violent and vengeful way. This view might be especially salient to Christians since the brothers are justifying their actions with Christian values and love/respect for their sister. Hence the moral that even evil actions you believe are justified by your religion are still terrible sins and unacceptable. Another idea is that by emphasizing the evil of the brothers, it highlights how one sin could lead to another greater sin by others, so sinning should be avoided to begin with.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/jamieson-fausset-brown/genesis/genesis-34.html
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=1&c=34
Interesting. Another interesting passage to look at is Genesis 19:4-8.
“But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter:
and they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.”
Basically, angels come down from heaven and the Sodomites see their beauty and want to sodomize them. So, in response, Lot offered to them his two virgin daughters instead so that the angels would not be bothered. Interesting stuff.
I think what needs to be remembered with these stories is the time and culture around which they were written. I do not personally believe the Gospels were written by a Divine force, but rather by humans. In this time, women were really not valued or respected much, and thus the rape of a woman was not thought too much of a big deal.